'I Shouldn’t Have Said That': Confederate Flag Advocate Accidentally Lets Racial Slur Slip

August 27, 2017

WRITER

Sometimes people sound reasonable right before they slip up.

On radio Friday, Glenn shared an unbelievable clip of an interview with a North Carolina man attempting to defend the Confederate flag.

Russell Walker of Aberdeen, North Carolina, attempted to bring a lawsuit against York County, South Carolina in June for removing Confederate paraphernalia from the main courtroom, WSOCTV reported. In an interview on the street, Walker explained why the Confederate flag isn’t racist, saying it was OK for people to disagree on its meaning … right before he called civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., a racial slur.

The York County main courtroom used to have a Confederate flag and portraits of two Confederate generals, but they were removed during renovations. Judge Jack Kimball dismissed Walker’s suit asking for the flag and the portraits to be restored, ruling that he had no standing to file such a suit in the first place since Walker doesn’t live in South Carolina.

"You’ve got to be careful of who you’re standing next to because sometimes people will sound totally reasonable," Glenn said.

"I don’t believe it’s a symbol of racism. I don’t believe it’s a symbol of slavery," the man said of the Confederate flag. "That’s my personal view, but how they feel is their business." After his slipup, he tried to cover it with "I shouldn’t have said that."

"It’s clear that that’s the way he refers to Martin Luther King always," Glenn said of the slur. He urged Americans to think about the company they keep and to be aware of these examples of racism. "America, wake up, this stuff is exactly what our black neighbors are talking about that we never see," he said.

GLENN: All right. We have Bill O'Reilly coming up in just about a half-hour.

Also, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who I love this guy, he is going to tell us a little bit about the latest decision regarding the Texas voter ID law. Ken Paxton will be joining us for that at the top of hour number three. I want to spend a few minutes here sharing with you a guy -- he's from South Carolina?

PAT: He's from North Carolina. But he's in South Carolina.

GLENN: Yeah. He's going down to South Carolina, and he wants to restore the Confederate flag. This is just something that I just want to play. You got to be careful. Because sometimes people will sound totally reasonable. And I want you to listen to -- I don't agree with him. But I want you to listen to -- he sounds like a pretty normal guy, until one thing slips through his lips. As he's explaining to the press that the Confederate flag is not racist and he's not a racist, listen up.

VOICE: Women feel about abortion. That's the same -- same type of symbol. Again, I don't believe it's a symbol of racism. I don't believe it's a symbol of slavery. That's my personal view. But how they feel is their business.

GLENN: Stop for a second. Stop for a second.

That sounds American.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Look, I don't think so, but that's my personal view. And if you want to view it a different way, I understand that. Sounds -- sounds reasonable.

VOICE: Hey, I go down the street, I see Martin Luther Coon. I shouldn't have said that. Martin Luther King.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop.

STU: Good God.

PAT: Good golly!

GLENN: Okay. So you know what's amazing about this, is it's clear that that's the way he refers to Martin Luther King always.

PAT: Oh, always. Always.

GLENN: Because he wasn't trying to make a point. He's just like, oh, see, you know I see on the streets, Martin Luther Coon -- King. Oh, I shouldn't have said that.

STU: No, you shouldn't have.

GLENN: Yeah, you're right on that one. You're right on that one.

STU: No, you shouldn't have.

GLENN: And maybe not just here. You should never say those things or think those things. But apparently you do.

STU: Wow.

PAT: Yeah. But I'm not a racist. I love everybody. I mean, some of my best friends are...

STU: Are, what? Don't finish that sentence, sir.

GLENN: You know, I just want to tell you, the banks are out of control. And they're colluding with the government. And the -- and the -- and the -- and the corporations, and they're getting rich, and we're not.

And, you know, I think that everybody really kind of understands -- and if you don't agree with it, that's fine. It's just these damn Jew bank -- I mean, I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have said that.

STU: I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have said that. Darn it.

GLENN: Darn it. Darn it. No, I love the Jews. I just think they all should be shoved into an -- I shouldn't have said that. Other room, I meant. That's what I meant.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: Because I'm going to give them cake.

It's crazy.

PAT: Your colors are shining through.

STU: Yeah, that's really, really -- and I will say that's part -- that is an effect of the way -- I am 100 percent behind people who say, "Let's out these white supremacists. Let's mock them. Let's expose their viewpoints." You know, there's these weird things now, where they're like -- there's these Twitter accounts that are taking pictures of the people in the rallies, and they're trying to give them consequences at their jobs and all those other things.

You know -- you know, those are weird.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

STU: But what that does in the end is put these people back in the closet.

GLENN: Back in the closet.

STU: They don't admit it. I'd rather hear these idiot -- I'd rather watch every one of them walk down the street with a torch because, instead of this --

GLENN: Right. I want to know who they are. I want to know who they are.

STU: I want to know who they are. So I can avoid them.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And it's interesting too, because a lot of them are proud of it. They don't have any problem being racist. They're proud of it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, this should tell white people -- you know, you probably -- I've told this story before, and I don't remember what city it was in. And I don't want to say because I don't remember for sure. But I was there with the -- I think the chief of police, the head of this theater, and somebody else. Maybe somebody from the mayor's office. I don't even remember. And I'm standing backstage, and we're talking -- were you there, Pat?

PAT: No. But it was in Louisville --

GLENN: So I -- it was --

STU: I shouldn't have said that.

GLENN: No, it wasn't. It actually wasn't.

PAT: It wasn't there. It was in Nova Scotia.

GLENN: No, seriously, it was not in Louisville.

STU: Legitimately, I do remember where it was, and it was not Louisville.

GLENN: Yeah. And so I'm standing backstage. And they said, "We're on CST." I said, "I like to start the shows on time. You know, people come here. Let's start on time. And I can actually run over, I hear, from time to time. So let's start on time." And the head of theater and the sheriff and the police or whatever, they're all standing around, and they said, "Well, you're on CST here." And I said, "What's CST?" And they said, "You know, Colored Standard Time. Coloreds never run on time." And I'm like, "What? What? What?" I mean, I couldn't believe it.

And this kind of thing where this guy is talking and he sounds kind of reasonable --

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: -- warning. That should be a warning for you to wake up on who you're standing next to. They might sound reasonable, but they very well may not be. And also, America, wake up. This stuff is exactly what our black neighbors are talking about that we never see.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep